Amanda Knox: I did not kill my friend

[davidn3600]

New York (CNN) -- If she had been at the scene of the crime, forensic evidence would prove her guilt, but Amanda Knox says there is nothing -- no DNA, no hair, no footprints, no handprints -- to show she was there.

Knox spoke in an exclusive interview with CNN on Thursday, two days after an Italian court released an explanation of her conviction.

In a retrial, Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, her then-boyfriend, were found guilty in the 2007 death of Meredith Kercher, Knox's onetime roommate.

"I did not kill my friend. I did not wield a knife. I had no reason to," Knox said.

"In the month that we that we were living together, we were becoming friends. A week before the murder occurred, we went out to a classical music concert together ... We had never fought."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/01/us/amanda-knox-interview/index.html

[cpwm17]

1. She can be thankful that there is one judge in Italy that has detectable common sense

Claudio Hellman, the judge who tossed their convictions, has lashed out at colleagues.
"The Florence Appeal Court has written a script for a movie or a thriller book while it should have only considered facts and evidence. There is no evidence to condemn Knox and Sollecito," said the judge in a scathing statement obtained by CNN.
"It's a verdict that, seems to me, is the result of fantasy and has nothing to do with evidence."

[GOPee]

18. Frankly, I haven't the sightist idea who to believe.

I confess I haven't read as much on the facts to render any opinion in either direction. My problem is I can't wrap my head around the insistence on the part of the court and prosecutors that they firmly believe in their verdict, and their guilt..

They have been offered several opportunities to drop this case or not reopen it, but staunchly refuse. I can't believe it's pride, or embarrassment, because there are as many that agree as disagree..

[pnwmom]

20. Judge Hellman, the judge on the first appeals trial, said there was NO EVIDENCE

against them and tossed out the guilty verdict and said they were INNOCENT. (Not just "not guilty.&quot

So you can't say that "the court" firmly believes in the verdict.

I hope you will read these two posts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4903176

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4903225

[Comrade Grumpy]

2. This whole fiasco is a blot on the Italian criminal justice system.

I'm embarrassed for them.

Which is not to say the US criminal justice system is without problems, either.

[Demo_Chris]

3. Sorry Amanda, I think you are a liar. nt

[OldHippieChick]

4. Do you know of any evidence of that?

[Demo_Chris]

5. Quite a lot actually, but there is no point or time to retry the case here. Some people...

Give her the benefit of the doubt and always have.

[11 Bravo]

6. "Some pepole here give her the benefit of the doubt" ... Correct me if I'm wrong ...

but isn't that pretty much the way our criminal justice is designed? You know, that whole "presumption of innocence" thing?

[davidn3600]

8. The only evidence against her is pretty much testimony from Rudy Guede

And he only gave that testimony when the Italians offered him a lesser sentence. So I dont think you can treat that as credible.

The rest of the stuff are theories by the prosecution that have no proof. Guede's DNA is what was found in and on Meridith's body. The evidence points to Guede as the killer.

The Italians are relying an awful lot on things like Knox's and Sollicito's behavior. Things that police tend to clue in on but dont mean a whole lot in a courtroom.

[pnwmom]

16. Even worse, Amanda and Raffaele's lawyers weren't allowed to cross-examine him.

Guede didn't actually testify -- he submitted a statement. This was a handwritten statement, and he was asked to read it in court. He couldn't read his own handwritten statement -- so someone else read it out loud for him.

His statement -- just as it was -- was entered into evidence. In fact, his whole separate trial, in which he agreed not to dispute any of the prosecution's claims -- became part of THEIR trial. This is why their "innocent" verdict got overturned.

[OldHippieChick]

9. I'm not giving her the benefit of the doubt, I'm

asking a legitimate question. You say "quite a lot" - give me an example of actual physical evidence please.

[pnwmom]

12. And some people decided she was guilty based on a tabloid witch-hunt

and never took the time to uncover the facts that would change their minds.

[IronGate]

13. You say quite a lot actually,

Last edited Fri May 2, 2014, 11:59 PM - Edit history (1)

but you don't cite one iota of evidence against her.
Amanda Knox was railroaded and should never return to Italy to serve an unjust sentence.

And, I highly doubt that our govt. would honor an extradition request from the Italians.

[pnwmom]

11. Sorry, Chris, you are grossly uninformed. nt

[phleshdef]

17. Sorry Demo_Chris, I think you are willfully basing your opinion on absolute shit.

[Dozer]

7. She might be guilty

but that doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what you can prove and from what I've read there isn't squat that would hold up in a single court anywhere in the US.

[pnwmom]

14. You're right -- except there is almost no chance that she is guilty.

In the small, bloody murder room, there wasn't a trace of evidence belonging to her: not a single trace of DNA, or fingerprint, hair, fiber, shoe print -- not anything. Also, there wasn't any trace of Amanda on Meredith's body or clothes; and there wasn't any trace of Meredith on Amanda's body or clothes.

On the other hand, Rudy Guede left his DNA inside Meredith's vagina and on her body and clothing; his palm print on her pillow; his DNA on her purse and his shoe prints on the floor. Not to mention his feces in the toilet.

The prosecution claimed that Amanda and Raffaele magically cleaned all their own invisible DNA and fingerprints from Meredith's bedroom, leaving only Guede's -- which anyone with a brain knows would be impossible.

[UTUSN]

10. I just don't know what to think anymore. n/t

[pnwmom]

15. Then think about this: the first appeals court found Amanda and Raffaele INNOCENT.

Not just "not guilty." Judge Hellman ruled that there was "no evidence" that they had done the crime.

Isn't that -- in and of itself -- enough reason to provide reasonable doubt for any future trial?

Also, think of this:

In the small, bloody murder room, there wasn't a trace of evidence belonging to Amanda: not a single trace of DNA, or fingerprint, hair, fiber, shoe print -- not anything. Also, there wasn't any trace of Amanda on Meredith's body or clothes; and there wasn't any trace of Meredith on Amanda's body or clothes.

On the other hand, Rudy Guede left his DNA inside Meredith's vagina and on her body and clothing; his palm print on her pillow; his DNA on her purse and his shoe prints on the floor. Not to mention his feces in the toilet.

The prosecution claimed that Amanda and Raffaele magically cleaned all their own invisible DNA and fingerprints from Meredith's bedroom, leaving only Guede's -- which anyone with a brain knows would be impossible.

[pnwmom]

19. david, what really happened is so much worse than most people realize.

What happened wasn't a breakdown of the Italian system -- their system is now set up in a way that inevitably brought injustice. Here's why.

A number of years ago (but after we signed the extradition agreement), Italy instituted a new option called a "fast track trial." If you accept this option, you get a reduced sentence in exchange for something equivalent to a "no contest" plea here in the U.S. But you also stipulate to the truth of all the claims they make about the evidence against you.

This is what Rudy did. He accepted the fast track trial and stipulated to everything the prosecution wanted. For that, he got his sentence reduced to 16 years and now he's already out on work-release, having his sentence further reduced for good behavior. One of the things he stipulated to was that he committed the crime with two other people, a man and a woman. In other places in the document, the two were named as Amanda and Raffaele, repeatedly. He, of course, also benefited from this stipulation, because it spread the guilt around. So by agreeing to the prosecution's claims that Amanda and Raffaele each wielded a knife and he "only" sexually assaulted Meredith, he ended up with a sentence of only 8 years.

What no one in the U.S. understood at the time Amanda and Raffaele were found innocent was that these stipulations in Rudy's earlier trial would come back to haunt them. The prosecution appealed the "innocent" verdict to the high court, on the grounds that the innocent verdict was contradicted by all the stipulations in Rudy Guede's trial -- stipulations which now have the force of established FACT. So the high court annulled the "innocent" verdict and ordered a new appeals trial to reconsider the verdict -- in light of all the stipulations that had already been accepted as settled truth in Rudy Guede's trial.

So Amanda and Raffale were found guilty because Rudy Guede in his trial agreed to stipulate that they killed Meredith, and thus his trial established that fact, and they were not allowed to dispute it in their own trial. They weren't even allowed to cross-examine him in their trial.

The result was fixed from the moment they got Guede to take the fast track option.

[davidn3600]

22. Its a very messy justice system

Many have compared it to a maze.

[pnwmom]

23. It's worse than messy. It's blatantly, systematically unjust.

The European Convention on Human Rights requires all its signatories -- including Italy -- to guarantee its criminal defendants certain basic rights. One of these is the right to question witnesses who testify against them. Italy has denied that right to Amanda and Raffale, by establishing the "truth" of the murder in a trial they weren't a part of -- and by preventing Guede from being cross-examined at their trial.

[cpwm17]

25. That is so bizarre

Italy's justice system seems to be designed to save face for the prosecution.

[FourScore]

21. What a nightmare she and Raffaele have had to endure.

It's so terrible!

Anyone who reads the facts of the case can see that Rudy Guede acted alone. I also read somewhere that the prosecutor (who is himself now in jail) had a thing about "satanic sex crimes". Apparently, an exorbitant number of his cases centered around them. What a whack!

[Fairgo]

24. The monster of Florence

Preston's book revealed that the true monster was, and likely still is, the italian legal system and its weird sympathic relationship with popular opinion. Worth a read before one decides to condemn the accused as the new incarnation of the beast, and risk becoming an agent of the monster in the process.